Schoerner Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 During the last days i searched the net and found extremely helpful information i wanna share with you: if you're in need of a new graphics card: it's the right time NOW! The Radeon8500(LE) is sold out and atm extremely cheap (i ordered one yesterday). For those of you that are living in US, you should check out www.newegg.com. If you want additional information, here you'll find extremely good forums, covering all your questions you could have: http://www.sharkyforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=d1ac6d0768dbaec9f1348c53a80cea2d&forumid=14 Reviews can be found here: http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/index.php http://www.tomshardware.com/ Hope this helps some of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 I bought a 8500LE with 128 MB, at that time extremly cheap for a 128MB card. You get no fog in CMBO (but smoke). Otherwise it is just fine, doesn't get too hot and the drivers are fine, too, which must be a first for AIT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Panzer Boxb Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Well, as soon as I can get my hands on a grubby little ol' Radeon 9700 Pro I may be selling me GF4 Ti4600. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trouserchili Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer Boxb: Well, as soon as I can get my hands on a grubby little ol' Radeon 9700 Pro I may be selling me GF4 Ti4600. i'll give ya $2000 CDN for it...works out to be about $19.95 USD ...im still running a Radeon VE BLAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Isn't the fog problem still unsolved with Radeon cards??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 I thought Gyrene reported good results with a Radeon in his Mac. I've been satisfied with my GF 2MX since they got the drivers straightened out, but I think after Sept. 20 I may be looking for something a little more powerful. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Panzer Boxb Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Why?Because.... 1) Every preview I've read for the 9700 has shown that it blows every other card, including the Ti4600's out of the water. and 2) I am an impulsive technology freak who absolutely must have the latest and greatest when possible. [EDIT: Suhweeet! Just found the OEM version for $339. Looks like I'll have it Thursday. Anyone interested in a Ti4600?] [ August 31, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Panzer Boxb ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Maybe. How much for the 4600? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stixx Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 I am! Give me a rough price.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 The reason I asked is that from what I've read, yes it (the ATi Radeon 9700 PRO), has some very impressive features, but a couple of things leave me concerned, or at least not yet ready to switch. (I also run an Nvidia GF4 Ti4600). Many of the improvements (breakthroughs), with the 9700 PRO, seem to revolve around DX9 API, which CMBB and many games for that matter will not be implementing since V9 isn't out yet. Also, from Tom's Hardware review on the 9700 PRO: It also features four vertex shaders and eight pixel pipelines - twice as many as NVIDIA's flagship. At least the second part of that statement is only half true, however, since the R300's pixel pipelines can only process one texture per clock cycle, compared to the GeForce4's two. In real-world terms, this means that the 9700 is roughly twice as fast as the GeForce4 in single-texturing scenarios. When confronted with the much more common multi-texturing, both chips should be roughly identical in speed - at least in theory.They go on to say, that neither card can really be fed enough data to work at a 100% efficiency factor, and that the deciding factor is memory bandwidth. Which, the 9700 PRO certainly has, no doubts there. But, a little further on they discuss the 8X AGP bus, and make this statement: The advantage of an 8x AGP bus seems to be of a more theoretical nature at this point. There just aren't any games at present that would come anywhere near needing this kind of bandwidth, much less saturating it.Reading between the lines in this review one gets the sense that the 9700 PRO has many great features, but a good many are geared for the future, not necessarily the present. Not that that is a bad thing, just not sufficient reason for me to dump the GF4 and run out to get a 9700 PRO. It is certainly an impressive card however and the benchmarks demonstrate a much higher level of FPS sustained by the 9700 PRO with current games. Since I run a Tyan Trinity 400, with the VIA Apollo 133P chips, I'm not sure the 8X AGP would run compatibly. Have had enough problems with running the 4XAGP, but the via 4-in-1 patches have cleared that up. What is your understanding of the issue of 8X AGP running on a 4X AGP board? I'm assuming it won't run at 8X ofcourse, but I'm wondering what issues might exist. Have you seen anything in the reviews on this? I haven't as yet. [ August 31, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 I don't trust anything Toms Hardware has to say. He sold out years ago during the great nVidia/3dfx wars. I would trust Anandtech's site more if they have a review of the cards. Computer Gaming World (latest issue) certainly gave the 9700Pro the nod over the G4 cards. So there is another data point for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: I thought Gyrene reported good results with a Radeon in his Mac. I've been satisfied with my GF 2MX since they got the drivers straightened out, but I think after Sept. 20 I may be looking for something a little more powerful. MichaelATI on Mac has always done smoke just fine. What you're looking for, BTW, is Radeon 9000. It should be about the same speed as current 8500, but much cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 I suppose that a 32mb card would do the trick just fine. But if you want to have the entire 9km square map on the screen, better go with atleast a 64 or 128mb! Chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: I thought Gyrene reported good results with a Radeon in his Mac. I've been satisfied with my GF 2MX since they got the drivers straightened out, but I think after Sept. 20 I may be looking for something a little more powerful. MichaelATI on Mac has always done smoke just fine. What you're looking for, BTW, is Radeon 9000. It should be about the same speed as current 8500, but much cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 The main reason for me contemplating getting a 9700 Pro is its 2d quality which out performs the GF4 cards. This card is on par with Matrox, which hold the crown in that department and have done for years. 3d doesn't really come into it as far as CMBB is concerned. Also, 16x FSAA (playable too!) will be staggering. The fog issue bothers me though. Has this card been tested with CMBB? (unlikely.) I would imagine it would have problems with fog table emulation much like it's older brothers which really puts me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: I thought Gyrene reported good results with a Radeon in his Mac. I've been satisfied with my GF 2MX since they got the drivers straightened out, but I think after Sept. 20 I may be looking for something a little more powerful. MichaelATI on Mac has always done smoke just fine. What you're looking for, BTW, is Radeon 9000. It should be about the same speed as current 8500, but much cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: I thought Gyrene reported good results with a Radeon in his Mac. I've been satisfied with my GF 2MX since they got the drivers straightened out, but I think after Sept. 20 I may be looking for something a little more powerful. MichaelATI on Mac has always done smoke just fine. What you're looking for, BTW, is Radeon 9000. It should be about the same speed as current 8500, but much cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 If you are a serious gamer, avoid anything bearing the MX/LE moniker. They are crippled in fundamental ways that you will feel a few years down the road. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by CrapGame: Isn't the fog problem still unsolved with Radeon cards???The ATI Windows drivers still don't support the old fog API that CMBO uses. It appears fog works fine on a Mac which uses different APIs anyway. Contrary to what some people assume, you do get the high-quality smoke in CMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Dunno if fog works on the 9700 with CM, but given the number of architectural changes in the chip, it may be a possibility. But one bug that does currently exist with the drivers: it can't do any FSAA with 16-bit games like CM. Only 32-bit. This will hopefully be fixed with newer drivers, but currently it doesn't work. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Wolfe: Dunno if fog works on the 9700 with CM, but given the number of architectural changes in the chip, it may be a possibility.It has nothing to do with architecture of the graphics chips. CMBO uses a stone-old API which ATI thinks nobody uses anymore and hence doesn't bother to pass through in their drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 On the PC ATI doesn't support 'fog tables' under DirectX (at least to the level that CM needs). This is true of the entire ATI line of video chips from the old Rage cards to the latest Radeon 9700's. The drivers will report to diagnostics that they support fog tables and there are even 'tweaker' programs that will enable several fog settings in registries, but the drivers don't have any code to emulate fog tables as far as I can tell. ATI instead supports 'vertex fog', but the screen shots I've seen (which are admittedly dated) show a much superior effect with fog tables compared to vertex fog. Nevertheless ATI seems to be somewhat set on emulating fog with just vertex fog. Since ATI is claiming that they're doing a lot more development on their drivers (releasing updates more frequently), they may someday get around to supporting fog tables (if enough people whine about it). Admittedly more support is directed towards T&L features, FSAA, filtering options, OpenGL performance and future DirectX support. Be careful in what you buy. ATI now has (ever since the Radeon 7xxx/8500 series) OEMs making cards (Gigabyte, Hercules, Sapphire, etc.) and much like the NVidia's there can be quality differences between them. ATI will contiue to make its own cards (I believe they have a plant in Mainland China), but will typically charge a slightly higher premium for them. The OEMs might user some cheaper components that can affect the visual display quality (like the display quality differences between different manufacturers of NVidia-based cards). There might also be small speed (25-50MHz) differences between some of the GPUs and memory that OEMs use compared to ATI - though the cards often won't be differentiated as such (with an LE designation, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts